Here are the 2012 election predictions from the Learning About Politics team:

President Popular Vote Winner

President Electoral College Vote Winner

Control of the Senate

Control of the House

Will We Know the Results on Election Night? 

Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein noted this week that lawyer Emmet Bondurant is working to get the Supreme Court to declare that the Senate's filibuster in unconstitutional. Klein's article does a good job of describing the history of the filibuster and why it was not the intent of the Founders.

I've argued before, on this blog and elsewhere (see below), that the Senate should abandon the filibuster. Whether or not the Supreme Court would actually strike it down, though, is difficult to say.

Filibuster supporters could point to the fact that the Constitution gives the Senate the authority to make it's own rules. Also, while it is true that the Founders intended majority rule in most cases, they could argue that the 60 vote requirement for cloture is not the vote on the bill -- it's the vote to end debate on the bill. The outcome of such a case would depend, in part, on whether the Supreme Court finds that to be a distinction with, or without, a difference.

For more info on the filibuster, see:

Why Don't U.S. Senators Filibuster Anymore?, Suite101

Laurence J. Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University, has devised a bipartisan health care reform plan--The Purple Health Plan. (Red and blue make purple, get it?) The plan would do away Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax deduction for employer provided health care. In its place, everyone would get a voucher for basic insurance coverage. The plan counts five Nobel Prize winning economists among its signers.

Frequent readers of this blog may recall that I made the exact same proposal over year ago with my own Proposal for Bipartisan Health Care Reform. I still recall how I came up with the idea. I was preparing to teach about health care to my Public Policy class at Marietta College and our nation was in the midst of a debate on health care reform. As Republicans and Democrats were both offering ideas on reform, and I was doing research on our current health care system, the following thoughts occurred to me:

• Three of the biggest drivers of our health care costs are Medicare, Medicaid, and employer subsidized health care. 
• We spend a lot of money on Medicare and Medicaid, which are grossly inefficient and contain a massive amount of fraud. And, a lot of revenue could be raised by doing away with the tax deduction for employer provided health care.
• The US government does simple programs well, such as Social Security, which is basically sending people a check each month. The US government does complicated programs poorly, such as Medicaid, which is basically running an insurance company. 
• Democrats mostly want universal coverage. Republicans mostly want to bring costs down through market based reforms. Can both sides get what they want?

Do We Need a Heath Care Mandate?

A Proposal for Bipartisan Health Care Reform 

Liberal versus Conservative health care policies 

I'm a big fan of Politifact and Factcheck.org. They provide an important public service. But sometimes I find some of their scoring decisions strange, especially with categories like "half-true", "mostly true", and "mostly false". Recently, for instance, Politifact rated Michele Bachmann "false" for stating that the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of federal taxes, and Obama "half-true"  for stating that incomes rose for the top 1% of wage earners and dropped for everyone else. Both statements are false, but could be considered true if you make assumptions about what they really meant by their statements. In an email to Politifact, I wrote,

Regarding: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/14/barack-obama/obama-says-incomes-increased-more-250000-top-1-per/

You give Obama a "half-true", for a statement that you acknowledge is false. Apparently, the "half-true" comes after making a bunch of assumptions that he didn't say.

Now look at this one: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/18/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent/

Bachmann also made a false statement, and you label it as such. But, if you assume she meant federal income taxes, it would be true. So, why not "half-true"?

I suggest some consistency. Either they are both "half-true", or both "false". Otherwise, it appears you are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but not Bachmann.

Trust funds have no particular economic significance. They do not hold separate cash balances; instead they function primarily as accounting mechanisms to track receipts and spending for programs that have specific taxes or other revenues earmarked for their use.

After President Obama introduced his budget to Congress last week (as he is required to do by law), he has been in a public debate with Republican leaders on federal spending. Obama's budget would freeze discretionary non-defense spending, makes cuts in some areas, raises spending in other areas. GOP leaders in Congress counter that Obama is not taking the deficit seriously enough because he wants to freeze spending at high levels (non-defense discretionary spending has increased over the last two years). Republicans are countering with their own budget cuts that would reduce overall non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. Some Republicans, mostly representing the Tea Party, want to make cuts in the current year's budget as well.

This pitched battle over non-defense discretionary is, however, a smoke screen. Both sides want the public to believe that they are taking our national debt seriously, but they are avoiding the root causes of our current debt crisis. Here is the key point that Americans need to recognize: any plan to reduce our deficit that does not address Social Security, health care, and military spending is not a serious plan.

Take a look at this chart of federal spending for FY 2010 provided by the Concord Coalition. Social Security, health care, and defense comprise 65% of spending, while non-defense discretionary spending (education, environment, international affairs, and other) are only 11% of the budget.

Critics from both the right and left of the political spectrum have pointed out these failures by Obama and congressional Republicans. Here are a few samples:

"The more charitable interpretation of the president's decision not to tackle entitlement spending or the tax code is that the administration decided that leadership, in this case, was not good strategy." --Ruth Marcus, Washington Post  

"In this budget, in his [Obama's] refusal to do anything concrete to tackle the looming entitlement debt, in his failure to address the generational injustice, in his blithe indifference to the increasing danger of default, he has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president prepared to put the good of the country before his short term political interests. Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bullshit it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road." --Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic

"The classic test of whether politicians are serious about balancing the federal budget is whether they confine their suggestions to eliminating earmarks, foreign aid, and fraud, waste, and abuse. Politicians love to rail against these things because they're unpopular and therefore make attractive targets. But doing so is a dodge. All combined, they account for only a tiny fraction of federal spending, so doing away with them does little for the bottom line. Anyone who implies otherwise isn't being forthright about the problem or the possible solutions. But politicians have always gotten away with this because most voters don't know enough about the budget to realize they're being snowed." --Joshua Green, The Atlantic

"And now what this has become, I read, is a political strategy. The president is not talking about because he is waiting for the Republicans to talk about it. And our new, bold republicans we just sent to the House of Representatives aren't talking about it because they are waiting for him to talk about it. Let me suggest to you that my children's future and your children's future is more important than some political strategy. Let me suggest to you that what game is being played out here is irresponsible and it's dangerous. We need to say these things and we need to say them out loud- when we say we're cutting spending, when we say everything is on the table, when we say we mean entitlement programs we should be specific. 

And let me tell you what the truth is. What's the truth that no one is talking about-here is the truth that no one is talking about: you're going to have to raise the retirement age for social security. Oh I just said it and I'm still standing here! I did not vaporize into the carpeting and I said it! We have to reform Medicare because it costs too much and it is going to bankrupt us. Once again lightning did not come through the windows and strike me dead. And we have to fix Medicaid because it's not only bankrupting the federal government, it's bankrupting every state government. There you go. If we're not honest about these things, on the state level about pensions and benefits and on the federal level about social security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we are on the path to ruin." --Governor Chris Christie, speech at the American Enterprise Institute

"No one can reasonably claim that the budget crisis exists because America spends too much on bed nets and AIDS drugs. Our massive debt is mainly caused by a combination of entitlement commitments, an aging population and health cost inflation. Claiming courage or credit for irrelevant cuts in foreign assistance is a net subtraction from public seriousness on the deficit." --Michael Gerson, Washington Post

"Over the next few weeks, Republicans will try to cut discretionary spending to 2008 levels and tell their constituents they are boldly reducing the size of government. That is a mirage. Anybody who doesn’t take on entitlement spending is an enabler of big government. The supposedly rabid Republican freshmen are actually big government conservatives. They will cut programs that do measurable good while doing little to solve our long-range fiscal crisis." --David Brooks, The New York Times

Public Opinion on Deficit Reduction

Thoughts on the Bowles-Simpson Debt Commission Report

The Difference Between the Deficit and the Debt

In an opinion editorial for the Columbus Dispatch on May 22, 2010, I argued that Republicans should support changing Senate rules to disallow filibusters. When the new Senate convenes on Monday, Democrats will still be the majority party. With a much slimmer margin, however, will they still try to change the Senate rules?

During the health care debate, liberal columnists, bloggers, and interest groups advocated changing Senate rules to limit use of the filibuster. These politicos grew frustrated at Republican senators' ability to block, frustrate, and tame the agenda laid out by President Obama in his 2008 campaign. Reasonably, therefore, Democrats began to question the wisdom of Rule 22, the Senate rule that allows filibusters by requiring 60 votes to end debate on a bill.

Paul Krugman, in a February 7, 2010 editorial for the New York Times, argued that “the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government;” therefore, Senators should “recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster.” Ezra Klein, writing for Newsweek on March 27, 2010, decided that Rule 22 is “no longer appropriate given the polarizing realities of our politics.” Liberal blogs ProgressiveCongress.org, CredoAction.com, ActBlue.com, and DailyKos.com have all taken up the cause of filibuster reform. You can go to their websites and sign a petition calling for reform.

Tom Udall (D-NM) has led the charge for filibuster reform in the Senate with committee hearings on the topic. He also has Tom Harkin on his side, who last tried to change the filibuster rules, along with Joe Lieberman, in 1995 while Democrats were in the minority. Dick Durbin and Carl Levin are also rumored to support reform.

Harry Reid, who had opposed any changes to the filibuster when Republicans wanted to ban its use for judicial confirmations, said in a March 10, 2010 press conference, Democrats are “going to take a look at the filibuster,” and, “we are likely to have to make some changes in it, because the Republicans have abused that....” Would Reid still support changes to the filibuster if Democrats were in a position to abuse it?

In an strange twist, Jack Conway, the Democrat's US Senate nominee in Kentucky, had a campaign ad asking, “can you imagine adding Rand Paul to the 'party of no'? We need filibuster reform.” Did he want you to vote for him, or support filibuster reform because he expected his opponent to win? If Conway had won, would he still support reform, or would he think it unnecessary without Paul in the Senate?

Some liberals, such as Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post, have suggested that the filibuster should remain to stop legislation that liberals would not like. This type of short-sighted thinking makes filibuster reform difficult. Senators should consider what is best for the Senate in the long term, not what is best for their party in the short term.

Democrats are correct to support changing Rule 22. By empowering every Senator with the ability to stall or halt legislation, Rule 22 has made the Senate dysfunctional. Hopefully, Democratic defeats in the 2010 elections will not dissuade them from pursuing reform.  

Related Posts:

Guest Post: Where do Florida Senate Candidates Stand on Senate Filibusters? 

Suite101.com: Why Don't US Senators Filibuster Anymore?

The Census results are finally in! These results mean we can see how many U.S. House of Representatives members will be gained or lost by the states. It also tells us which states gain or lose Electoral College members.

Here are the states that lose or gain House seats by redistricting.

States that lost 2 each: New York, Ohio
States that lost 1 each: Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

States that gained 1 each: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Washington
State that gained 2: Florida
State that gained 4: Texas

One thing that is useful when guesstimating who is going to win and who is going to lose is to look at who controls the state legislature. If the Republicans control the state legislature, they will likely redistrict the state to maximize wins for their party as well as losses for the Democrats.

If I use the 2010 election results....

Which state legislatures that gain or lose are controlled by Democrats?

New York, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Nevada, Washington

Which state legislatures that gain or lose are controlled by Republicans?

Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah, Florida, Texas

Which state legislature has split control?

Louisiana


It should not come as a surprise that most of the states that lost seats (MI, OH, NY, MA, PA, IL, MO, IA) are all North of the 36°30′ parallel. If you don’t know the line, think Kentucky/Tennessee borderline. If you look at a map of the USA, that parallel marks the lower border for VA, KY, KS, CO, UT, and mostly MO except for the dangling bit. It was also the Missouri Compromise borderline for westward expansion of slavery.

In a more colloquial way, here's the deal... the North is losing people, and the South and West are gaining people. Your major exception is Louisiana, but the lingering effects of Hurricane Katrina are likely the source of the population loss for Census 2010.

So… what do these results mean in terms of political parties?


States the Republicans Should be Happy about.

• Ohio. Ohio has Republican Party control in the State legislature. The state went for Obama in 2008, but it was a close swing state with only a 4.6% difference between the two parties. The current U.S. House distribution for the state is 5 Democrats and 13 Republicans. Ohio is losing 2 seats, and with Republican dominated redistricting, I’ll guessing the Democratic Party will lose them leaving them with only 3 Democratic members of the U.S. House.
  
• Massachusetts. Sure, Massachusetts is a solid Democratic Party state at the moment. They also have zero Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. The seat the state loses is going to be Democratic Party seat. I predict there will be a lot of infighting among Democrats for which member is going to fall on their sword. The Republicans win one here without much work because the Democratic Party is going to lose a seat no matter what.
  
• Missouri. It lost a seat, but this state was an extremely close swing state in 2008 with the presidential margin of victory less than 1%. They have a Republican controlled state legislature and the U.S. House seats are 3 Democratic and 6 Republican. One Democratic Party House member is probably going to get their seat taken away so this can be considered a potential win for the Republicans.
  
• Michigan. The state legislature is under Republican Party control and the state voted for Obama in 2008. The current U.S. House seats in Michigan are 6 Democrats and 9 Republicans. Republicans are likely going to strip out a Democratic Party U.S. House seat when they redistrict to lose one seat.
  
• Pennsylvania. See Michigan. Rinse. Repeat. (though they have 7 Democrats and 12 Republicans in the House)
  
• Arizona, Georgia, Utah, South Carolina, Texas. The Republican Party gained seats in all these states. They also control the state legislatures and their states all voted for McCain in 2008. The 8 new electoral college seats they got (4 to Texas alone) will all probably be redistricted towards Republicans.
  Predictions: These states get more interesting if they decide to dig in and strip out existing Democratic Party seats in favor of more Republican Party leaning ones. The current rumor for Austin, Texas is that it will be re-cracked again in an attempt to unseat Lloyd Doggett who survived a similar effort in 2003 by the state legislature. Arizona, Georgia and Texas are the most likely targets for redistricting to lose existing Democratic Party seats. Utah and South Carolina only have 1 Democratic Party member each per state in the U.S. House so they may be more difficult to remove, though not impossible.
  
• Florida. Florida is gaining 2 House members. They narrowly went for Obama in 2008 and they have a Republican controlled state legislature. My guess is the Republicans are going to go for the jugular in Florida and attempt to remove as many Democratic Party seats as possible during redistricting. Currently, Florida has 6 Democrats and 19 Republicans in the U.S. House. With substantial, but different minority populations in both in the North and South (Jacksonville/Miami), it will be interesting to see how the lines are drawn.

• Nevada and Washington. Both states pick up a seat and have Democratic Party controlled state legislatures. They should probably be redistricted in favor of Democrats.
  

• Cut $200 billion in discretionary spending by 2015.
• Half of which, $100 billion, will be from the Department of Defense's budget.
• Raise the retirement age for Social Security.
• Reduce the growth in Social Security payments. (It is currently indexed to wages.)
• Simplify the tax code by doing away with many deductions, such as the home-mortgage interest deduction and employer provided health care.
• Abolish many farm subsidies.
• Cut Medicare spending.
• Increase the gas tax by 15 cents per gallon.

It's time to call in God. It's time to unleash God. You know the discipline of fasting and prayer, when you put it together is so powerful, and it's like I said earlier, when you put them both together, it seems like God leans a little bit closer to you, and you're saying to Him, "I'm not gonna let go until you listen to me." Now we've done just about everything and they're not listening. It's time to sic God on 'em. And that's the reason for the fast.

Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. (Isaiah 40:28, NIV)

David Brooks' recent editorial addresses some of the issues raised by the "Call for Intergenerational Justice," the topic of my previous 2 posts. He notes that Americans today are more self-confident than previous generations and place much emphasis upon their own self-importance. "In short, there’s abundant evidence to suggest that we have shifted a bit from a culture that emphasized self-effacement — I’m no better than anybody else, but nobody is better than me — to a culture that emphasizes self-expansion."

Brooks also wonders if this attitude shift contributes to the debt we have accumulated and why we are having trouble getting that debt under control.

Most pervasively, I wonder if there is a link between a possible magnification of self and a declining saliency of the virtues associated with citizenship.

Citizenship, after all, is built on an awareness that we are not all that special but are, instead, enmeshed in a common enterprise. Our lives are given meaning by the service we supply to the nation. I wonder if Americans are unwilling to support the sacrifices that will be required to avert fiscal catastrophe in part because they are less conscious of themselves as components of a national project.

Perhaps the enlargement of the self has also attenuated the links between the generations. Every generation has an incentive to push costs of current spending onto future generations. But no generation has done it as freely as this one. Maybe people in the past had a visceral sense of themselves as a small piece of a larger chain across the centuries. As a result, it felt viscerally wrong to privilege the current generation over the future ones, in a way it no longer does.

These religious groups’ focus on government’s role in ameliorating poverty, however, leaves largely unaddressed the real core of the problem, and the necessary steps to address it.

This means that the fundamental role of government in the provision of various services must likewise be explored. This requires a return to basics, the first principles of good governance, that does justice to the varieties of governmental entities (local, regional, state, federal) and institutions of civil society (including families, churches, charities, and businesses). We must ask ourselves: What is government for? What is the federal government for? Is the government primarily and essentially a means of upholding civil order by the application of retributive justice? Are civil magistrates “God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Ro 13:4 NIV)? Or are they primarily to be agents of the redistribution of wealth, to take from the rich and give to the poor?

The 'What Would Jesus Cut?' and 'A Call for Intergenerational Justice' campaigns want to make particular social programs immune from these calculations. But the government’s fiscal straits are so dire that no program or area of spending can be privileged thus.

I've recently signed onto a statement put together by the Center for Public Justice and Evangelicals for Social Action titled A Call for Intergenerational Justice: A Christian Proposal for the American Debt Crisis. The statement points to the immorality of passing our large national debt onto our children and children's children. It states, 

Today’s federal debts threaten not only the present generation, but also our children and generations yet unborn. Intergenerational justice demands that one generation must not benefit or suffer unfairly at the cost of another.